IrishTimes.com

18 March 2010

Archbishop Dermot Clifford has distanced himself for remarks made by Monsignor Maurice Dooley over the reporting of concerns to the appropriate State authorities.

Archbishop Dermot Clifford has distanced himself for remarks made by Monsignor Maurice Dooley over the reporting of allegation of child abuse to the appropriate State authorities.

In a statement released this afternoon Bishop Clifford said views expressed by Msgr Dooley “are his own personal views” and “do not represent the policy or the practice of the Catholic Church in Ireland today concerning the reporting of allegations of abuse to the civil authorities, North and South.”

In an interview during the Today with Pat Kenny  show on Monday Mgr Dooley said Cardinal Seán Brady “had no obligation whatsoever” to report allegations of abuse to the Garda Síochána when he first learned of them as a priest 35 years ago.

Msgr Maurice Dooley, a former professor of canon law, said it was neither a civil crime nor a sin against the law of God for the clergy not to report such matters to gardaí.

Asked by Kenny if it would have been better for Cardinal Brady to have gone to the Garda in 1975, when he was working as a priest under bishop of Kilmore Francis McKiernan, Msgr Dooley replied: “I don’t think so.

“Fr Brady was dealing with a particular in camera investigation within the church. It would be a violation of his obligations if he went to the police on that. What he did was to go to the bishop, pass the report back to the bishop.

“The bishop, within the context of the church law, silenced this particular paedophile priest and that was all the church could do.”

When put to him that had the then Fr Brady gone to gardaí many other children would have been saved from abuse by paedophile priest Fr Brendan Smyth, Msgr Dooley said this was “hypothesis”.

He said it was the duty of abuse victims and their parents to report instances of abuse and the duty of gardaí to investigate them.

However, in the statement issued today Bishop Clifford said: “As his bishop and on behalf of the Archdiocese of Cashel and Emly, I want to state that all concerns that come to light are reported fully and without delay to the State authorities.

“The policy and practice of this diocese, and every diocese, is to report all allegations to the statutory authorities.

“As a consequence, I have spoken to Monsignor Dooley today and he assures me that he will not be speaking again in this controversy.

Independent.ie

Thursday March 18 2010

By Jason O'Brien

AN expert in canon law insisted yesterday he would not report child sex abuse to gardai if a paedophile priest confided his crimes to him.

Monsignor Maurice Dooley was speaking in defence of under-pressure primate Cardinal Sean Brady after revelations he failed to alert gardai about the actions of the notorious paedophile priest Brendan Smyth when he learnt of them in 1975.

Smyth would go on to abuse children for a further 18 years.

But Mgr Dooley, who studied canon law with Dr Brady, defended the cardinal's silence in 1975, and added that he would not necessarily refer sex crimes against children to gardai nowadays if passed information confidentially.

Mgr Dooley was asked what action he would take if a paedophile priest approached him now to confide his crimes.

"I would not tell anyone," he said. "That is his responsibility. I am considering only my responsibility. My responsibility is to maintain the confidentiality of information which I had been given under the contract of confidentiality.

"There must be somebody else aware of what he is up to, and he could be stopped. It is not my function.

"I would tell (the priest) to stop abusing children," he added.

Trust

"But I am not going to go to the police or social services in order to betray the trust he has put in me," said Mgr Dooley who was speaking on BBC Radio Ulster.

His comments contradict national guidelines for safeguarding children introduced by the Catholic Church early last year, whereby church authorities must ensure all allegations or suspicions of child abuse are promptly reported to civil authorities.

"What worries me is that while he may be coming out and saying this, how many other priests and bishops have the same opinion and would act in the same way?" abuse survivor Marie Collins told the Irish Independent.

Legal sources last night said that until 1997 it was a criminal offence not to report knowledge of a crime to the gardai, but that law had been knocked off the statute books without being replaced.

However, a new offence has been created under the Criminal Justice Act 2006 known as reckless endangerment of children, whereby a person having authority for a child can be prosecuted for intentionally or recklessly endangering a child.

The source added that a person could also perhaps be prosecuted for impeding the course of justice but this would only occur if gardai were already investigating the matter.

The Garda Press Office refused to comment on the matter last night.

- Jason O'Brien

Independent.ie

Tuesday March 16 2010     

 By Mgr Maurice Dooley 

There is no justification for the campaign demanding episcopal resignations

THE media have been very successful in the past year or so in forcing resignations of politicians for perceived transgressions of political correctness.

But there is something unseemly in their applying the same techniques to force episcopal resignations, playing a kind of game of skittles with the bishops to see how many of them they can knock down and crow over their downfall.

This begs the question: why should anyone resign his office?

I would assume that it is because he is guilty of doing something wrong for such an office-holder.

The usual charge is that of being guilty of a 'cover-up'.

But what is a cover-up?

It is surely the fact of denying information to someone (the gardai, the Health Service Executive, the media, or the public) who are entitled to get this information.

This begs the further question: did the office-holder (in this case the bishop or other clergy) have any obligation to reveal this information to the gardai?

The answer to this is simply 'no', they had no obligation under Irish law to tell the gardai anything -- there is no statute or common law requiring them to do so.

The Dublin Archdiocese Commission of Investigation, under Judge Yvonne Murphy, admits to this in section 1.16 of her report: "There is no legal requirement for such reporting . . . it is clear that the commission would prefer the law to be otherwise."

But the law of the land in 1975 did not provide for "mandatory reporting" by anyone and still does not in 2010.

So there is no bishop 'guilty' of a 'cover-up', and still less of a 'criminal cover-up'.

The events of 1975 were an internal in-camera investigation, taking evidence to support a tribunal process to strip Brendan Smyth of his faculties to act as a priest.

And it would have been a dereliction of his duties for any member of such an investigation to report the information acquired to anyone outside the tribunal.

But there would be no bar on those who gave evidence going, then or later, to the gardai, the health authorities, the media or anyone else to report their experience of abuse.

This they would be perfectly entitled to do personally, through their parents or anyone else.

Since canon law normally debars minors under 14 from being admitted to give evidence, I would like more detail on the alleged oath of secrecy that the children were required to take before I would accept it as true.

I would regard any such oath as inappropriate for such young children.

There is therefore no justification for the campaign demanding episcopal resignations.

  - Mgr Maurice Dooley 

Mgr Maurice Dooley is a retired parish priest and canon lawyer